Re: the CDs --> Liberate Music!

[Chris Chovit <cho@newdream.net>]

You've made some good points, Andre.   Since I've made the choice about
making my living in another field, and making music simply for joy, I
didn't consider the point of view that people are trying to make a living
at this stuff.  I am sure you are right that most musicians (who make their
living from music) cannot afford to give their music away, as they have
invested a lot and are depending on their craft.  It would be like me
giving away technical consutling time for free.

Everyone needs to answer for themselves: Why am I making music?  If part of
the answer is "to make a living" then I can see that you have to to do what
you have to do.  However, if there are folks out there who are doing what
they do simply because they love to do it, (ie. they don't financially
depend on it), perhaps they would be more willing to share their music for
free.  I wonder what percentage of musicians they are...?   probably
small...

You are right about our favorite artists:  Pink Floyd did not get to where
they are because they considered themselves pure artists -- they were in a
business to sell records and worked hard at doing that.  They invested
money and used the returns to invest more money.  Otherwise, they'd still
only be playing in London clubs.

Thanks for you clear thoughts, Andre!

- Chris




>> I would even encourage artists to give their music away for FREE!   [Of
>> course, at this point in my life, I am still the consumer, and not the
>> artist, so I may be biased here.]
>
>Hmmm.
>
>I realize most of the people on this list aren't actively making their
>living through playing music, and that even fewer are making their
>living playing their own music.  I've got no problem with people who
>want to trade or give away their music out of sheer goodwill or the
>desire to have their music heard.
>
>However, here are some arguments for an artist actually charging a price
>for what they do.  (Hopefully this won't utterly reek of a struggling
>musician complaining about his lot in life.)
>
>Making music takes time.  Trying to make music in certain ways can take
>a *lot* of time.  Just getting yourself to the point where you have the
>technical facility to realize that music (be it practicing a guitar or
>programming samples in a computer) can take a *very very* long time.
>Coming home from working eight hours in a "day job" and then trying to
>muster up the energy and concentration to do a few hours of serious
>practicing (not just vacant noodling in front of the TV) is a hugely
>draining proposition.
>
>So trying to turn one's music into one's profession is often born
>largely out of the need to set aside the necessary space in one's life
>to pursue their music the way they want to.
>
>Many people who are serious about music have spent countless hours
>throughout their entire lives trying to hone their craft.  It's not just
>a case of idly sitting around thinking about how great it would be to
>get paid money to strum a few chords -- it's a very serious investment
>of discipline on many different levels.  A lot of musicians still
>struggle to maintain that sort of dedication even while doing non-music
>related jobs in order to make ends meet.  To suggest to someone in this
>position that they might better serve their creative muse by giving away
>music they have recorded in the name of liberating the creative spirit,
>and then subsidize the expenditure by selling *t-shirts* of themselves,
>is a dubious proposition to say the least.
>
>The idea of "alternative merchaindising" (t-shirts, posters, etc) works
>well for a name act which has a fixed identity, an existing fan base,
>and/or "product value".  People buy shirts from these acts because they
>want to identify themselves as fans in public, and be recognized as fans
>by other people who are presumed to have a knowledge of the artist in
>question.  In short, you can get a lot of milage out of wearing a
>Marilyn Manson T-shirt at a rock concert.  You'll get about 1/1000th of
>a mile to the gallon wearing a "Joe Schmoe, Internet Loopist At Large"
>shirt when you check your e-mail.
>
>You're absolutely right that online marketing and distribution is going
>to completely change the way music is bought and sold, and you're right
>that it allows the artist to eliminate the middleman.  For those very
>reasons, the idea that the artist should therefore start giving their
>music away through this sort of medium is a pretty unsympathetic point
>of view.
>
>Just about any band or artist web site nowadays has a page of sound
>bites online where people can download samples of the act's music.
>Posting excerpts is the ideal way to go, since it gives a listener a
>taste of what the band has to offer; at the same time, if someone wants
>the entire piece, they need to buy the recording.  The artist's music is
>exposed to just as many people as it would be if it were given away
>online, but the artist isn't forfeiting their right to try and get a
>tangible return on a lifetime's worth of work -- to say nothing of a
>very real investment of finances in order to get the music recorded in
>the first place.
>
>If someone is actually taking the time and expense to record and
>mass-produce (or even burn individual CD-Rs) of their music, the least
>you can realistically expect is that they'll want to cover the cost of
>doing so.  I realize that there are people (including some of you here)
>who will and do go further, and give away these items in the name of
>sharing your music.  I sincerely applaud your approach, but I also fully
>empathize with those who want (let alone *need*) to see a return on
>their investment.
>
>My experience has been that the average person who buys records (or for
>that matter, many people who follow music seriously and are themselves
>musically active) don't really have the first clue as to what the
>realities of trying to make a living in the arts is really like, either
>in terms of the situational realities of the marketplace or in terms of
>the psychological realities that an artist in that situation is prone to
>dealing with on a day-to-day or minute-by-minute basis.
>
>So, for all those who have no doubt spent every bit as much time and
>dedication pursuing their music as has been detailed above, and are
>still perfectly happy to have music as a hobby, a side interest, or a
>lark, more power to you.
>
>But I'd like every person reading this to do one thing: Think about your
>favorite musicians and artists.  Think about how their music has
>affected your lives.  Think about the investment of time and resources
>that it must have taken for them to be able to bring these things into
>being.
>
>And then think about whether or not this music could realistically have
>come into being if they hadn't pursued music professionally.
>
>--Andre LaFosse
>http://home.earthlink.net/~altruist